[p2p-research] Why Post-Capitalism is Rubbish:A

[Dmytri Kleiner]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Michel Bauwens wrote:

> so, if Benkler would call it, indirect reciprocity, would you be happy?

My concern is more with what sorts of components peer-production can haver, and
non-reciprocity, as I have said before is a red herring.

In building peer-production we must incorporate the necessity of
reciprocity, both direct and indirect.

The interesting thing is a common stock of productive assets.


>       Just like production of immaterial wealth with material inputs is not
>       "immaterial production."
> 
> 
> again, this is a semantic discussion, you insist that all use your language,

I have not authored a language to call my own, I am proposing you use 
clear language, so that we can talk about the reality of peer-production 
and spread the understanding that immatrial assets can have no exchange 
value, so owners of material assets will always capture the entire
productive surplus this quite import fact is lost in talk of "immaterial" 
production.


>       I have not argued for a particular model of reciprocity, rather against
>       the ridiculous "Non-reciprocal, Immaterial" definition of
>       peer-production, and for one more in line with the historical commons,
>       and with peer networks, that is: producers independently employing a common
>       stock of productive assets.
> 
> 
> 
> but the whole point is that there is a difference between traditional physical and
> localized commons, which are generally depletable, and digital commons, which are
> global, can be reproduced at marginal cost (though of course, relying on a physical
> infrastructure to do so)

Yes, there is a difference but the difference is in circulation, not
production. That is an important distinction.

In my opinion, the formulation of peer-production as immaterial,
nonreciprocal is designed to avoid the question of distribution of
productive assets, in exactly the same way that the neoclassical 
formultion of value as utility rather than cost is, using the same
equivication: conflating production with circulation.

The interesting part of peer production is it's potential to be a new 
more of production to challange capitalism, thus a focus on distribution of 
productive assetts is rather critical.

Then Benklerite definition is compatable with Capitalism, that is
rather the point. Mine is not, except to the degree that it can exist
within a captalist world, building the new society in the shell of the
old, etc.


>       Then why did you give the example of a family as non-reciprocal? My
>       response was to that false example.
> 
> 
> No, according to my definition of indirect reciprocity, it is a perfect example,

Sure, except then the example was a nonsequitor, since I was not arguing
for particular modes of reciproricty.

> they are accounted for, and can be accounted for, by empircially observing reality,
> singele free software programmer can explain to you the material circumstances that
> allow him to contribute .. there is absolutely no mystery to it

Then what leads you to such absurd claims as that immaterial producers
"own their means of production" if this is obvious?


>       And so-long as you insist on talking about some "immaterial,
>       non-reciprocal" production you are certainly not talking about "what is,"
>       since no such thing has existed or can exist.

> ok, for the sake of argument then, let's admit that Linux doesn't exist, or that it is
> exclusively produced by wage labourers ... let's see how far that will bring you ...

The Linux Kernel, you may wish to note, was not produced by the
non-contributing users you mentioned. Obviously.


> euh, explain the economics of Wikipedia to me please ...

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

---
Wikimedia Foundation relies on public contributions and grants to fund its
mission of providing free knowledge to every person in the world.[37] It
is exempt from federal income tax[37][38] and from state income
tax.[37][39] It is not a private foundation, and contributions to it
qualify as tax-deductible charitable contributions.[37]

At the beginning of 2006, the foundation's net assets were $270,000.
During the year, the organization received support and revenue totaling
$1,510,000, with concurrent expenses of $790,000. Net assets increased
by $720,000 to a total of over one million dollars.[37] In 2007, the
foundation continued to expand, ending the year with net assets of
$1,700,000.[40] Both income and expenses nearly doubled in 2007.[40]>  
----

Wikipedia is crowdsourcing, like YouTube, etc, with the important
distinction that it's content is licenced freely, and that the foundation is
non profit.

Of course, you are moving the goalposts, since my statement
was about software, not articles in Wikipedia, which are different.



> so the corporations would only be required to pay for material productive assets ... of
> coursee, as you say, the 'scarcity' of material assets requires it 'naturally' ..

No. But I don't think this thread is a good conext to talk about
copyfarleft, it is a different topic. Just understand that it is mainly a
proposal for licensing books and movies, specifically for cultural works
currently mostly licenced under copyleft noncommercial licences, which
deny both propertarian and peer-production. We should start a different
thread to discuss this in more depth.


>       The simple rule is that producers, as a whole, must account for the
>       production and circulation costs of all inputs, material and immaterial.
>       However, immaterial inputs have lower reproduction and circulation
>       costs.

> agreed, and it is because this is already happening that the phenomena exists ..., but
> we would like to improve these reproduction mechanisms in the sense of equity and
> non-exploitation

Yes!


>       It's not a quibble over words, but an essential matter of how we
>       define what, in fact, we are talking about.
>
>       What is peer-production? Is it worker's independently employing a
>       common-stock of productive assets? Or is it nonreciprocal, immaterial
>       production? What specific socio-economic development are we discussing
>       here?
> 
> 
> 
> ok, I'm saying something already exists, but can only be reproduced presently by the
> system of capital, and the plan is to find ways to reproduce it 'differently', more
> equitably, as far as we can ..
> 
> you are saying that, until that happens, it does not exist ... fine for me, but you
> won't make me change my language which I indeed think is the best way to explain it

No, we are both saying it does exist, we disagree on what it's definitive
properties are. We are both talking about the same phenomenon, i.e. the
emergence of free software, we both see this as potentially a
component of a new way of producing and sharing that could replace
capitalism.

The definitive properties you are attributing to this new form of
production are "Immaterial, Non-reciprocal," yet these can not be he
properties of the more equitable new way of producing and
sharing that we seek. What's worse, is that so long as the new mode is
kept within the limits imposed by these properties, it is no threat to
Capitalism, but rather a part of it.

The definitive properties that I attribute is that this new mode
producing and sharing is based upon "producers independently sharing a
common stock of productive assets," This not only better describes
existing peer production, is a more appropriate usage of the word
"peer," but it these properties can be properties of the more equitable
new way of producing and sharing that we seek. There are properties we
can build on in extending peer production into the material. What's
more, is that production based on such properties provides no place for
private capture of Rent, and as such, is inherently anti-capitalist.

This is not a dispute about terminology so much as a dispute about the
very basis of the new mode of production we are discussing.


> but copyleft/cc is also applied to digital content ... not necessarily to
> physical books and cd's ...

(re copyfarleft again).

Again, wont get into this now, but I never said physical books.
Copyfarleft is for free cultural works, not software. They are 
different. But please lets save this for a different thread.

[...]

>  let's stop with such useless discussions,

Far from useless, these discussion are critical to establishing a
tactical basis for building the forms of producing and sharing we seek.

IMO, it is very important to understand framing issues, such as why
neoclassical capitalist-appologists want to promote a subjective theory
of value and an immaterial definition of peer-production, it is exactly
to misdirect the discussion away from equality in distrubition of
productive assets. If we want to change society we have to think on
terms of equality in distribution of productive assets, and frame our
definitions that way.

Cheers.




-- 
Dmytri Kleiner, aspiring crank

http://www.telekommunisten.net